Born good? Babies help unlock the origins of morality

It's a question people have asked for as long as there have been people: are human beings inherently good? Are we born with a sense of morality or
do we arrive blank slates, waiting for the world to teach us right from wrong? Or could it be worse: do we start out nasty, selfish devils, who need
our parents, teachers, and religions to whip us into shape?

The only way to know for sure, of course, is to ask a baby. But until recently, it's been hard to persuade them to open up and share their secrets.
Enter the baby lab.

This is the creature at the center of the greatest philosophical, moral, and religious debates about the nature of man: the human baby. They don't do
much, can't talk, can't write, can't expound at length about their moral philosophies. But does that mean they don't have one?

I found this article and video to be interesting. It appears even at a very young age babies show a preference for "good" instead of "bad". The
questions this raises about the nature of morality is interesting (at least to me)

Are we born inherently good? or are we born inherently evil?

The video also raises questions about other things, such as a predisposition towards punishment.

We watched as Wynn and her team asked a question that 20 years ago might have gotten her laughed out of her field. Does Wesley here, at the ripe
old age of 5 months, know the difference between right and wrong?

Wesley watches as the puppet in the center struggles to open up a box with a toy inside. The puppy in the yellow shirt comes over and lends a hand.
Then the scene repeats itself, but this time the puppy in the blue shirt comes and slams the box shut. Nice behavior...mean behavior...at least to our
eyes. But is that how a 5-month-old sees it, and does he have a preference?

I'd say that we're born with an expectation of goodness and fairness. But, ultimately, we're born selfish. As we develop and grow, we begin to
actively seek out what we perceive to be good and fair for us, we may do things that others find not good and unfair.

Good and Evil are relative based on perspective. I guess figuring which side of the fence you inherently chose to be on would be interesting but
people seem to fail to understand the nature of "good" and "evil" within our own minds and how it differs from others.

Hitler genuinely thought his goals and aspirations were of good intention...he didn't view his goals as necessarily evil. Obviously...he had enough
people who agreed with him on that perspective to get the worlds attention. NOW...from the outside perspective we could argue all the live long day
that his intentions were "evil" and he was a horrible person and etc...

Real evil does exist but the catch is, it sees itself as good...the interesting part about this is that it also perceives its counterpart as evil...so
I'm sure Hitler saw the allied forces as evil in their intent and objectives...

its ALL perspective/context...one mans trash is another mans treasure.

To say that children are inherently one or the other is odd to me as you cannot decide...what the universal good or evil IS without the social
definition of such...there is absolutely no objective indifferent definition of good and evil...so there is no control in this study and is subject to
social bias...since society is what determines what is considered a "good" act and what is a "bad act"....the experiment or study has societal goggles
on...

They may be able to objectively say x% of infants inherently have personality A) or personality B) depending on the traits of A) and B) but to say one
is good and one is evil and imply that the infant knows that and knows the difference is....a reach imho.

What we know of good and evil is what society has taught us...and not all societies are the same...and not all people acknowledge the influence of
society. Society has usually been the most influenced and controlled by those with prestige given an iconic idolization status amongst peers...so
societies values aren't necessarily a representative of what everyone values...

Anyway I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to come to any conclusion on this study of infants. Any conclusion would be
biased based upon the interpretation...If they concluded that infants are inherently "good" how many different versions of "good" do you think that
baby is to the world?

I don't necessarily like social-psych studies because they make conclusions that can't possibly be made and people misinterpret those false
conclusions in their own way under their own influence wearing their own goggles...at the end of the day you can't really honestly say what is going
on is unbiased science...its more like using science to manipulate perspective and world view.

I am passed the "duality" nature of things, or should I say my awareness is.

Like you say, Hitler believed he was doing a "good" thing for humanity. Who am I to then pass judgement upon him if from his perspective he was
doing "good"?

I still find this article to be interesting though. At least an interesting angle to approach the subject matter, offering a different perspective
towards certain "views".

It's all relative.

I was reading a book Or maybe it was a magazine Suggestions on where to place faith Suggestions on what to believe But I read somewhere That
you've got to beware You can't believe anything you read But the good Book is good And it's all understood So don't even question If you know what
I mean

But it's all relative Even if you don't understand Well it's all understood Especially when you don't understand And it's all just because Even
if we don't understand Then lets all just believe

But there you go once again You missed the point and then you point Your fingers at me And say that I said not to believe I believe I guess I guess
it's all relative

But if we're the ones to blame then the fruit Shouldn't taste so good we were used Used to thinking we got nothing to lose We're losing
everything but the truth Is walking straight into a roadblock ending left here bending Your point of view was chosen by the serpent's ruse

With all its do's and don'ts The future is an empty promise Unconcerned and so tired of waiting We could sell it wooden horses full of nightmares
and when they open This all might recompose There's no going back to the good old days it's just a phase bring in some new life Archaism is a dusty
road leading us back to nowhere

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.